DVDizzy Forum

I love the idea of a live action version of Beauty and the Beast, especially if they are going to adapt the 1991 movie/Broadway musical. BUT, if Kristen Oneface Stewart is going to star as Belle, I will not see it. That woman could not have acted even if her life depended on it. Besides, she looks stupid with her constantly open mouth and empty eyes. She does not embody the smart and bookloving personality of Belle, and she is not beautiful - an actress playing Belle should be that. And please, no Emma Watson for this role neither... They should cast a relatively unknown actress that looks like Belle, an actress who can actually act and sing.

Prince Edward wrote: They should cast a relatively unknown actress that looks like Belle, an actress who can actually act and sing.

I couldn’t agree more.

Prince Edward wrote:I love the idea of a live action version of Beauty and the Beast, especially if they are going to adapt the 1991 movie/Broadway musical. BUT, if Kristen Oneface Stewart is going to star as Belle, I will not see it. That woman could not have acted even if her life depended on it. Besides, she looks stupid with her constantly open mouth and empty eyes. She does not embody the smart and bookloving personality of Belle, and she is not beautiful - an actress playing Belle should be that. And please, no Emma Watson for this role neither... They should cast a relatively unknown actress that looks like Belle, an actress who can actually act and sing.

Unless of course the character of Belle is getting revamped as a troubled young lady who is depressed that she isn't understood by others.

Oh, and the Beast is a brooding loner who says disturbing things that somehow entices the girl.

If they had to go the "well-known actress" route, I would have picked Amanda Seyfried. At least she can sing.

Warm Regards wrote: Unless of course the character of Belle is getting revamped as a troubled young lady who is depressed that she isn't understood by others.

Oh, and the Beast is a brooding loner who says disturbing things that somehow entices the girl.

Ugh, don't give them any ideas .

Warm Regards wrote: If they had to go the "well-known actress" route, I would have picked Amanda Seyfried. At least she can sing.

No she can't, I've seen Les Mis. At least, she can't sing any better than Stewart can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPnJJZOZhI

Although I do think she would be a more effective actress than Stewart, I've never found Seyfried very beautiful either; eyes are too buggy. The only actress I think Belle really resembles is Natalie Portman, especially when she was younger- same tilted brown eyes, brown hair, and pointed chin. But of course Portman is too old now and I'm pretty sure she can't sing. I really do hope they go for an unknown, and that whoever they choose will be so good that it will be a breakout role for her.

I can't say I was that impressed with either Seyfried or Hathaway's singing in Les Mis and wouldn't appreciate them as Belle. I also think Hathaway is now too old to portray Belle. She is now 31 and Belle is supposed to be a teenager. Seyfried is also in her late 20's. However good an actress they both are, they cannot really get away with playing a convincing 19 year old.

I like the idea of finding an unknown and casting her as Belle. I think that could really work. I'm not sure a well known established actress is the way to go. Find a beautiful actress with cracking voice. She has to be out there and Disney would be giving her a massive break into Hollywood.

I've already given my opinion on Stewart and I'll say it again. No. Just No.

dollover wrote:

Warm Regards wrote: If they had to go the "well-known actress" route, I would have picked Amanda Seyfried. At least she can sing.

No she can't, I've seen Les Mis. At least, she can't sing any better than Stewart can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPnJJZOZhI

Although I do think she would be a more effective actress than Stewart, I've never found Seyfried very beautiful either; eyes are too buggy. The only actress I think Belle really resembles is Natalie Portman, especially when she was younger- same tilted brown eyes, brown hair, and pointed chin. But of course Portman is too old now and I'm pretty sure she can't sing. I really do hope they go for an unknown, and that whoever they choose will be so good that it will be a breakout role for her.

Personally, I think Amanda Seyfriend is gorgeous.

That said, I'm pretty sure they are going to cast a well-known actress in this role, so it's best to at least get someone who can act because they most likely won't be able to sing. See Sweeney Todd, Mamma Mia, and Les Miserables for how musicals are made without actual singers... To me, the best options so far mentioned are Emma Watson and Natalie Portman (more the former than latter for me). I'd still take Anne Hathaway over Kristen Stewart, even if she was 60. Besides, they often cast actors who don't fit their characters' ages, and Belle has a worldliness to her that most Disney leading characters don't.

Why don't they go the Samantha Barks route, and hire someone actually from the stage ? Even someone who has played Belle before !

Sam was the best thing in Les Mis, certainly 'beating' Amanda and Anne. To me, Anne's performance, though good, was slightly tainted with the quite blatant and all out "I WANT AN OSCAR AND I WILL WIN ONE THIS YEAR !! LOOK, I EVEN CUT OFF MY HAIR FOR IT !!"

Sam was a pleasant surprise, and I would really hope they go through that route again here.

Samatha would be a great choice. Amanda was in 'Red Riding Hood' and will be in 'Pan'... I don't see them casting her or Kristen.

PLEASE NO ANNE HATHAWAY! I am sick and tired of her! Plus, she's way too old for Belle. And no Emma Watson either

Yeah, Samantha Barks would be an excellent Belle and she has a pretty good reputation from Les Miserables. I also think Anna Kendrick and Emmy Rossum would be amazing Belles too! Chelsea from That's So Raven and Kim Possible were also wonderful Belles on Broadway. They may be gone from the spotlight, but they can still be qualified!

I'm REALLY, REALLY sorry to be that person, but:

Laura Osnes would be the perfect Belle and she's defientely the best qualified for the job. She's a Broadway star with a pure, golden voice. She earned a Tony nomination for being a classic princess (and would have win if Pippin didn't transferred over to Broadway the last second) and she said numerous times that Belle was her dream role. And she looks EXACTLY like a Belle!

If any of these girls actually audition for Belle and for some reason, they still choose Kristen Stewart for Belle, that will be beyond a travesty and a real disgrace to Walt Disney's name!

Atlantica wrote:Why don't they go the Samantha Barks route, and hire someone actually from the stage ? Even someone who has played Belle before !

Sam was the best thing in Les Mis, certainly 'beating' Amanda and Anne. To me, Anne's performance, though good, was slightly tainted with the quite blatant and all out "I WANT AN OSCAR AND I WILL WIN ONE THIS YEAR !! LOOK, I EVEN CUT OFF MY HAIR FOR IT !!"

Sam was a pleasant surprise, and I would really hope they go through that route again here.

Just what I was thinking. Samantha Barks needs more roles. Her and Kevin McHale.

...And now I want Samantha to voice Angelina in Giants alongside Kevin as Jack.

disneyprincess11 wrote:And no Emma Watson either

See this is the same reaction I have every time I hear people mention Laura Osnes. There is nothing wrong with Emma, however; she's beautiful, the right age, and a wonderful actress.

I love Laura Osnes, but she is two years shy of 30. Belle is supposed to be 18.

All these actresses you guys are naming are all old. They probably won't start filming until 2-3 years from now. Either cast an unknown or cast a known actress who is currently between 18 and 23. Just think of someone who is around Lily James' age (24 when filming Cinderella last year). That's the kind of actress they will go for. Mia Wasikowska was 19 when Alice in Wonderland was released and was younger when it was filmed. These are the types actresses they will probably go for. Someone young who is entirely unknown or relatively unknown (in the case with Lily James -- people watch Downton Abbey but not everyone does).

Disney's Divinity wrote:See this is the same reaction I have every time I hear people mention Laura Osnes.

She is overrated. I can't say anything about her acting, but her voice is nowhere near as impressive as people make it out to be. The only way she would seem worthy to play a Disney princess is if you played her back-to-back to Mandy Moore.

tsom wrote: All these actresses you guys are naming are all old. They probably won't start filming until 2-3 years from now. Either cast an unknown or cast a known actress who is currently between 18 and 23. Just think of someone who is around Lily James' age (24 when filming Cinderella last year). That's the kind of actress they will go for. Mia Wasikowska was 19 when Alice in Wonderland was released and was younger when it was filmed. These are the types actresses they will probably go for. Someone young who is entirely unknown or relatively unknown (in the case with Lily James -- people watch Downton Abbey but not everyone does).

I hope you're right that they go for someone mostly unknown. On the other hand, neither of those two are talented either, so maybe going the well-known route wouldn't be so bad.

Maybe they'll look to their own Disney Channel stars, who are all young and pretty and think they can sing haha. Plus most of them are relative unknowns.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

tsom wrote:All these actresses you guys are naming are all old. They probably won't start filming until 2-3 years from now. Either cast an unknown or cast a known actress who is currently between 18 and 23. Just think of someone who is around Lily James' age (24 when filming Cinderella last year). That's the kind of actress they will go for. Mia Wasikowska was 19 when Alice in Wonderland was released and was younger when it was filmed. These are the types actresses they will probably go for. Someone young who is entirely unknown or relatively unknown (in the case with Lily James -- people watch Downton Abbey but not everyone does).

I hope you're right that they go for someone mostly unknown. On the other hand, neither of those two are talented either, so maybe going the well-known route wouldn't be so bad.

Why do you say that? What films have you seen Mia in?

Disney's Divinity wrote:She is overrated.

Oh no, I didn't mean by "you're stupid". I meant in a good way. I totally respect your opinion.

Personally I think Lily James is a good actress. Her character on Downton Abbey is my favorite. As for Mia Wasikowska, I have only seen her in Alice, which I saw a long time ago, so I really have no opinion on her acting.

Disney Duster wrote:This shouldn't be called a remake. It is clearly meant to be a different film, with a different name.

... Gaston!

I'm actually a regular viewer of Downton Abbey, so that's where I got that impression of Lily James. But everyone has their own opinion.

Just to clarify, I don't think Laura Osnes is awful or untalented or down in the gutter like Mandy Moore. I just think there are so many theater voices exactly like hers; her voice doesn't have much personality for me is all (going off the R&H's Cinderella recording). I feel the same way about Lea Salonga, who some people love but who I'm lukewarm towards. I wouldn't say Paige O'Hara and Susan Egan were necessarily the best singers in the world or anything, but they did have a character to their voices to add their decent ranges.